PRINCE Harry’s visa documents will not be made public despite him admitting to taking drugs in his memoir, a judge has ruled.
Harry’s reference to taking cocaine, marijuana and psychedelic mushrooms in his book Spare prompted a conservative Washington, DC think tank to question why he was allowed into the US in 2020.
1
However, in a major boost for the Duke of Sussex, Judge Carl Nichols said that Harry had a “reasonable privacy interest” in relation to his US immigration paperwork so it should stay private.
But the judge did agree that Harry had revealed “intimate details” of his life in his memoir Spare – which included a description of his private parts freezing.
And Harry’s privacy interests were somewhat diminished by him being a public figure, the judge said.
The decision comes after Judge Nichols spent five months reviewing Harry’s immigration file as part of a case brought by the Heritage Foundation.
The organisation sued the Department of Homeland Security after it refused a Freedom of Information request to see immigration files on Harry — now a US resident.
Heritage claims that Harry may have lied on the forms under the section which asks if you have been a drug user.
Now, in his ruling seen in court documents today, Judge Nichols said “the public does not have a strong interest in disclosure of the duke’s immigration records”.
His judgement added: “Like any foreign national, the duke has a legitimate privacy interest in his immigration status.
“And the duke’s public statements about his travel and drug use did not disclose, and therefore did not eliminate his interest in keeping private, specific information regarding his immigration status, applications, or other materials.”
At the court in Washington, D.C., Judge Nichols noted that Harry’s memoir ‘Spare’ sold more than 1.4 million copies on its first day on sale and became a New York Times bestseller.
Judge Nichols said that the book “shares intimate details of his life” including “numerous instances” where Harry took drugs.
In the view of the judge, Harry had a “reasonable privacy interest in his immigration records”.
Judge Nichols said that Heritage is “partially correct that as a public figure, the Duke’s public statements tend to diminish his privacy interests compared to ordinary foreign nationals admitted to the United States”.
The opinion states: “But it (Heritage) goes too far in arguing that the privacy interest is so diminished by his public statements as to be de minimis”, using a Latin word for very small.
Judge Nicholas added that the Duke’s public statements about his drug use did not eliminate his interest in keeping private information about his immigration status
In particular, the judge said that Harry had never disclosed the following facts but the next paragraph is redacted.
Heritage’s argument that revealing Harry’s paperwork would shed light on the workings of DHS “fails”, the ruling states.
“For the reasons discussed, the public does not have a strong interest in disclosure of the Duke’s immigration records”, the order states
The judge said that some documents submitted to him by DHS were “of particular relevance” but the sentence was followed by a large paragraph that is redacted.
Another large section of ‘particularly relevant’ information was also redacted.
DHS has handed over Harry’s immigration paperwork in April for Judge Nichols to review.
He wanted to see the ‘particular harm’ that would arise from the material being made public.
Judge Nichols told Homeland Security that its arguments so far, including during a hearing in February, were ‘insufficiently detailed’ for him to decide.
The case had taken on a new edge in light of the Presidential election with Donald Trump suggesting he could deport Harry if he wins in November.
The dismissal of the case saves Harry from the potential for future embarrassing revelations about his personal life.
During the hearing in February, a lawyer for DHS claimed that Harry may have lied about his drug use to boost sales of ‘Spare’.
Assistant US Attorney John Bardo told the court in Washington: “The book isn’t sworn testimony or proof.
“Saying something in a book doesn’t necessarily make it true.”
